AuthorTopic: MFDB Test in Swedish Proffsfoto. (Read 9164 times)

The Swedish magazine Proffsfoto (A subsidiary of Cap&Design/IDG Sweden.) has a pretty good test of current Medium Format Digital Back's in the last issue (came out the 7th of November.)

They run a selection of the current Phase One, Hasselblad, Sinar and Leaf models against each other with "see for yourself" printed imagery. Points are given for the different tests (resolution, sharpness, color, speed tethered/untethered, etc.) I can't remember the specifics right now, left my copy at home.

You dont see many tests like this, and its a pity its written in Swedish so limited in its value for everyone outside of Scandinavia. (The test is very much for the pixel-peeper in us all )

Please give us a short take on the test. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess the text is as much copyrighted as our beloved photos, so I wont repeat any of it here. But I guess I can say as much as this:

The difference between sensor-makers and back-makers isn't that great. The results are more like modern tests of 35mm DSLR's, they end up a couple of points apart... The biggest difference is not in the files, more in the workflow, speed and software.

Standard copywright rules state that you may quote brief passages and discuss findings and ideas freely even about copyrighted materials. Copyright law was never intended to infringe debate, discussion, or the spread of ideas, but merely to financially incentivise writers/content providers.

Standard copywright rules state that you may quote brief passages and discuss findings and ideas freely even about copyrighted materials. Copyright law was never intended to infringe debate, discussion, or the spread of ideas, but merely to financially incentivise writers/content providers.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Alright, I will discuss some of the article here later when I have my copy in hand (left it at home), specifically the parts where I think the findings are lacking and I have a personal opinion. I researched Swedish copyright law on wikipedia, and would find the above to be in accordance with it.

Alright, I will discuss some of the article here later when I have my copy in hand (left it at home), specifically the parts where I think the findings are lacking and I have a personal opinion. I researched Swedish copyright law on wikipedia, and would find the above to be in accordance with it.

The test is between the products; Phase one P45/P30/P21, Hasselblad CFH-39, Sinar eMotion 75 and Leaf Aptus 75/65. All on a Hasselblad H2 with 120 macro lens.

Firstly I think the test is slightly flawed, it does not take into consideration the build, screen, battery, and other issues besides image quality, yet does take speed both tethered and untethered into consideration as well as conversion speed in software. This in my opinion gives the Leaf system and the Hassellblad system a disadvantage, where the Leaf has a gorgeous screen and can shoot to a firewire disk/batterypowered disk, and the hasselblad has battery advantages (on H-systems), optical correction advantages as well as shooting direct to firewire HD's. (Im not familiar with all these backs, so sinar user dont shoot me for not giving you credit for something... )

Basically the test shows little or no image advantage and gives all the backs the same score with the exeption of the P21 (because of lower resolution.) This is something I expected, the chips are not "that" different. The Phase systems pull away a little on longer exposures, with sinar and hasselblad runner ups, and the leafs last. In the "noise at high iso" department, both the kodak sensor models with 39 mpix are marked down a little together with the sinar, and leaf in the middle, with the P30/21 on top. This is a surprise to me, i would have thought high pixel count is an advantage here... a bit like old medium format film against 35mm...

When shooting "against/into" the light, all come out the same.

Differences are mainly in the speed department, here the hasselblad lags behind, with the P45 and Leaf 75 slightly ahead of it. P21 wins hands down with the rest in the middle. The last part is conversion tests from software, here the Leaf 75/eMotion75/H-CFH-39 are behind, with P21 ahead, and the others in the middle.

As I stated, I think the test is slightly flawed, yet it states something we are all aware of, things like software, build, compatibility with _your_ system, accessories, price, dealer availability in you neighbourhood, etc. are key to your choice, where image quality is not the main factor for measuring difference.

The new tools on the block (p+backs, aptus "s" backs, hass-apo-corr, etc.) is not evaluated. I think choice of back more and more comes down to the differences between these, and my very personal guess would be Aptus for speed, P+ for high iso/build, and CFH/H3D for straight lines/digital corr/adaptor plate (more with certain lenses....) (The sinar may well have some particular strengths, I havent looked at it outside of the test in Proffsfoto...)

For the record I'm a CFH-39 user, and would not change my initial choice, based on dealer availability, price, battery, storage, and upgrade path. I'm not affiliated or sponsored in any way.

As a architectural photographer who uses this software daily, I can attest to this. Straight lines rendered straight are definitely superior to rendering them curved. Hasselblad's software does what it says. One click and the distortion is corrected. I suggest you go to a dealer and test.

Quote

People are bringing up the Hassellad lens correction as an advantage, but we have yet to see any evidence that the images are superior to an uncorrected but well-designed lens. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

People are bringing up the Hassellad lens correction as an advantage, but we have yet to see any evidence that the images are superior to an uncorrected but well-designed lens.

Take a look at the MTF curves for the Hasselblad 28mm on their website. Bottom line is that they are extremely impressive, certainly superior to the H 35mm. And to deliver that resolution without distortion would add up to an incredibly impressive optic, all in all a wider, better 38mm Biogon for the 21st century.

People are bringing up the Hassellad lens correction as an advantage, but we have yet to see any evidence that the images are superior to an uncorrected but well-designed lens. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have uploaded an interior shot, previously available for download by a kind visitor on this board. There are two versions in the link, corrected and uncorrected (with and without DAC applied in flexcolor.) The image is taken on the H2D with a HC-35 lens. (If the photographer who originally uploaded it no longer wants it available, please let me know and ill remove it from the website...)

links no longer available

Quote

The Sinar's big advantage is the adapter plate system which allows you to fit it onto multiple platforms. The test didn't take that into account either, it seems.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, and a major flaw on the testers part I think, especially when a parameter as speed is allowed, alongside image quality. (Hasselblad has adaptor plates as well on its CF models, exept the CFH. Rumour has it though that you have to shim it on some cameramodels to make the sensor become perfectly in plane with the lens focus point inside the body...)

Hi AxelIf you want to use my photo to demonstrate something, I think that is ok, but the better way to go about it is to ask first. Now it is a fait accompli. Of course I uploaded those photos for people to view and try out the new software. In one way you were so sensitive about copyright issues regarding discussing an article in the Swedish press and now you use a photo without permission and only mention a nameless photographer.Please get it it right! Marc

Hi AxelIf you want to use my photo to demonstrate something, I think that is ok, but the better way to go about it is to ask first. Now it is a fait accompli. Of course I uploaded those photos for people to view and try out the new software. In one way you were so sensitive about copyright issues regarding discussing an article in the Swedish press and now you use a photo without permission and only mention a nameless photographer.Please get it it right! Marc[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84568\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]